+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage (/thread-16346.html)
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Mavfin - 07-09-2015
(07-07-2015, 12:37 PM)Bolty Wrote:(07-06-2015, 11:38 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: @Bolty - I didn't lose any argument, and in fact, I would venture to say that many of the comments in both Lem and Kan's posts only STRENGTHENED or confirmed my larger points. But, if you want to think otherwise, have it.
You "lost" the argument due to your tirade against another forum poster, filled with vitriol and hatred. On this site, the goal is to attack and defend ideas, not other posters.
That you have disagreements with, well, most of the posters here is fine. You're allowed to disagree with me as well. However, that post stepped way over the line of decency and had to be pruned. Note that you didn't get banned.
Well, imo, I think we ALL lost in here. I thought we were looking at a thread about the recent Supreme Court decision...but that's not what this thread is about. It's mostly a thread of unadulterated bullshit, as is usual when FIT is involved.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - LemmingofGlory - 07-09-2015
(07-09-2015, 02:10 AM)FireIceTalon Wrote: I am not the least bit interested in "points of view", of any kind. "Points of view" are subjective perceptions of the world constructed for the sake of upholding certain ideologies, abstract moral judgements, and other meaningless philosophical mumbo jumbo. They are an independent thing from an objective description and critique of the present material conditions, and have absolutely no bearing on the real workings of the world whatsoever. The world does in fact work a certain way REGARDLESS and independent of your meaningless "personal views" or morals.
There's no purpose in you having a conversation with other individuals if their points of view are lacking in value. I already observed to you that you enter any discussion with the assumption that you need no new information since you do not view yourself as at all lacking perspective, and this admission is exactly that. You don't value us. Go away.
Meanwhile, I will listen to [url=http://d.zoobe.com/videos/mV6SsM-zm1AcBGyO7g1IPxBFvng]a bunny[\url] read your post to me.
-Lem
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - FireIceTalon - 07-09-2015
(07-09-2015, 07:32 AM)LemmingofGlory Wrote:(07-09-2015, 02:10 AM)FireIceTalon Wrote: I am not the least bit interested in "points of view", of any kind. "Points of view" are subjective perceptions of the world constructed for the sake of upholding certain ideologies, abstract moral judgements, and other meaningless philosophical mumbo jumbo. They are an independent thing from an objective description and critique of the present material conditions, and have absolutely no bearing on the real workings of the world whatsoever. The world does in fact work a certain way REGARDLESS and independent of your meaningless "personal views" or morals.
There's no purpose in you having a conversation with other individuals if their points of view are lacking in value. I already observed to you that you enter any discussion with the assumption that you need no new information since you do not view yourself as at all lacking perspective, and this admission is exactly that. You don't value us. Go away.
Meanwhile, I will listen to [url=http://d.zoobe.com/videos/mV6SsM-zm1AcBGyO7g1IPxBFvng]a bunny[\url] read your post to me.
-Lem
Oh please
. Spare me the self pity bullshit.It is a two-way street man. You don't value me either, so why would I? I mean damn, according to you, I'm just a crack pot anyways. You, Kan, and others are guilty of all the same shit that I am accused of (whether those accusations are true or not), so I don't want to hear it.
I would rather you guys just tell me that a Marxist or any other type of radical leftist political thought is not valued or acceptable on the political discussion table at the LL forums, only mainstream ones are. At least then, you would be being honest and I would have more respect for ya then.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Bolty - 07-09-2015
(07-09-2015, 05:38 AM)Mavfin Wrote: ...but that's not what this thread is about. It's mostly a thread of unadulterated bullshit...
It's a Lurker Lounge thread. It goes where it goes organically. Clearly people found the conversation worth posting about wherever it went, or else it wouldn't have gone where it did.
It's another way of saying "if you feed the trolls, they get fed."
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - LemmingofGlory - 07-13-2015
Alright, more news articles about resistance to enforcing the ruling. Evidently southern states were all about trying to resist enforcing Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriages.
AP Wrote:Today, five decades later, interracial marriages are roundly accepted and universally enforced. But the complex collision of religious conviction and gay rights might prove more impervious to change.
This sounds like news-y speculation to me, almost to make the story sound juicier and more nebulous than it is. But generally speaking, religion usually finds that it survives in the modern era by adapting as individuals begin cherry-picking which rules are big enough to make a pious little stink about. For something like same-sex marriage that doesn't actually affect anyone except people with homosexual inclination, it's going to be pretty difficult to stay worked up about it long term. The current polling data, which I believe kandrathe linked, even shows that the opinion on this is significantly different between age groups. As salty old people die off the subsequent generations just won't care.
(07-09-2015, 01:01 PM)Bolty Wrote: It's another way of saying "if you feed the trolls, they get fed."
I generally consider trolls to be self-aware, but that's just semantics.
~Lem
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Jester - 07-13-2015
(07-13-2015, 06:25 AM)LemmingofGlory Wrote: The current polling data, which I believe kandrathe linked, even shows that the opinion on this is significantly different between age groups. As salty old people die off the subsequent generations just won't care.
That's correct, but it's not the most important factor. Demographic change is a smaller part of the increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage than people changing their views.
-Jester
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - kandrathe - 07-14-2015
(07-13-2015, 11:46 AM)Jester Wrote:I was listening to an interesting radio program this morning, relating to this shift. Also, how there is a disconnect between majority public opinion, and the ability to facilitate democratic change to to numerous factors related to how our system is designed. For example, even without considerations of gerrymandering, liberals are more concentrated in cities. Whereas, at state levels and above, representatives are chosen by subdividing geography. This results in a system where due to geography alone, more rural (red state, district) views are over represented in the democratic process.(07-13-2015, 06:25 AM)LemmingofGlory Wrote: The current polling data, which I believe kandrathe linked, even shows that the opinion on this is significantly different between age groups. As salty old people die off the subsequent generations just won't care.
That's correct, but it's not the most important factor. Demographic change is a smaller part of the increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage than people changing their views.
-Jester
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Hammerskjold - 07-14-2015
(07-13-2015, 06:25 AM)LemmingofGlory Wrote: As salty old people die off the subsequent generations just won't care.
It may take longer than some folks would like, and bigotry in general can be cyclical. People can forget or ignore the lessons of history quite fast.
Or they may lack the reading comprehension ability, but hey they're great at throwing tantrums I guess.
Anyhow before the discussion derailment attempt via tantrum happened, there was a good point you mentioned with the 14th amendment. We've discussed this previous and it has been brought up in other threads, but 14th also happened to be used to give corporations it's legal personhood.
It'd be interesting to get more legal perspective and opinions on this US ruling, to see how ironclad or resistant it would be to legal twisting. You know, aside from what tumblR brand SJW PC police has to rant and rave about it, because I'm sure the world is just dying to know what insightful nuggets they can bring to the table.
INB4: NO UR THE NUGGET! Mmmmmm, nuggets.![[Image: chichen_nuggets_not_chicken_a.jpg]](http://youbeauty-wpengine.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/chichen_nuggets_not_chicken_a.jpg)
Hey waitaminute...All White..?? That nugget is racist! You better believe I'm calling it out! BIG TIME! #racistfoods!
ps. PM inbound, check your inbox though because it maybe full.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - FireIceTalon - 07-14-2015
1. I don't use tumblr.
2. The term "social justice warrior" is just more meaningless right-wing jargon (used in pretty much the same context by moronic people who think "cultural Marxism" or "political correctness" have gone haywire) as a weapon so they don't have to face the music of being a bigot, so any opposition to their views must be called out as being "social justice warriors" or "cultural Marxists" or a variety of other mumbo jumbo terms. But even if the term has no merit on its own, I guess it does make a great rallying cry for right-winged morons against their so-called (equally moronic) socially 'liberal' opponents.
3. And you wonder why threads get derailed. Because people like you open up your ass, er, your mouth rather (oh wait, they are the same thing in this case!) and a bunch of shit falls out of it.
4. You're a complete dingbat that has no clue as to what you are talking about. Per usual.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Hammerskjold - 07-14-2015
(07-14-2015, 10:09 PM)FireIce Wrote: 1. I don't use tumblr.
2. The term "social justice warrior" is just more meaningless right-wing jargon (used in pretty much the same context by moronic people who think "cultural Marxism" or "political correctness" have gone haywire) as a weapon to justify or hide their bigotry. But even if the term has no merit on its own, I guess it does make a great rallying call for right-winged morons against their so-called (equally moronic) socially 'liberal' opponents.
3. And you wonder why threads get derailed. Because people like you open up your ass, er, your mouth rather (oh wait, they are the same thing in this case!) and a bunch of shit falls out of it.
4. You're a complete dingbat that has no clue as to what you are talking about.
Just archiving this gem in it's original version before it gets self-retconned worse than Lucas insisting Greedo shooting first in the cantina scene.
It's quite telling just how recent and from where you think certain words and phrases comes from.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - FireIceTalon - 07-14-2015
Um, I don't give two fucks where they came from, or how recently. That isn't relevant to the point. I'm interested in what they ACTUALLY are used as, RIGHT NOW, in the real world - not in your fucking little made up abstract fantasy version of it. The term "social justice warrior" is meaningless jargon, that serves as nothing more than an inflammatory term of ridicule and accusation made by right-wingers (especially online), to remove the burden of being an bigoted asshole and try to shift blame on those (as being "social justice warriors", "politically correct", "cultural marxists", or whatever other synonymous jargon they use) who call them out for their said views. That is in fact what it is, and how it is used, regardless of its origin or whatever other twisted fantasy you have of the term. Period.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Hammerskjold - 07-14-2015
(07-14-2015, 10:34 PM)FireIce Wrote: Um, I don't give two fucks where they came from, or how recently. That isn't relevant to the point. I'm interested in what they ACTUALLY are used as, RIGHT NOW, in the real world - not in your fucking little made up abstract fantasy version of it. The term "social justice warrior" is meaningless jargon, that serves as nothing more than a term of ridicule and accusation made by right-wingers (especially online), to remove the burden of being an bigoted asshole and try to shift blame on those (as being "social justice warriors", "politically correct", "cultural marxists", or whatever other jargon they use) who call them out for their said views. That is in fact what it is, and how it is used, regardless of its origin or whatever other twisted fantasy you have of the term. Period.
Hilarious, worthy of Tony Clifton. That bit with the "I have no idea what a word or phrase or concept actually means, therefore it is meaningless!" Classic. And the overly literal interpretation of everything, it's marvelous, simply marvelous how such a triple secret probation act can be pulled off.
I've always liked the first print edition of most things. Directors cut or re-workings are fine too, as long as the first print still exists alongside it.
I mean we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Also, if you do see this Lem, it probably is your inbox, but in case it's not apologies if there are duplicated PMs. As always, I put the blame squarely, on someone and something else.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - FireIceTalon - 07-14-2015
Apparently it is you who doesn't know what the term means. I've already explained what it means and/or how it is used. You continue to post jargon-filled drivel about how I don't know what it means, but it was YOU, yes YOU, that used the term incorrectly (by your own admission!). Or, you were making a different point entirely and didn't use the correct term to drive said incoherent point home. So which is it? My perspective is that you are just parroting right-wing soundbites to try and look "cool". All you really accomplished was this:
![[Image: Head_up_your_ass.jpg]](http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080402233507/uncyclopedia/images/2/2e/Head_up_your_ass.jpg)
But hey, in some circles, I suppose this is seen as pretty impressive.
I was going to leave this thread alone, but no, you had to run your mouth and take subliminal jabs at me (and using jargon that you don't even know the meaning of to top it off). You're pathetic, but I think I'll stop feeding the troll here.
Quote:Also, if you do see this Lem, it probably is your inbox, but in case it's not apologies if there are duplicated PMs. As always, I put the blame squarely, on someone and something else.
Oh yes, high school gossip. What are you, 14?
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Hammerskjold - 07-15-2015
(07-14-2015, 11:17 PM)FireIce Wrote: Apparently it is you who doesn't know what the term means. I've already explained what it means. You continue to post jargon-filled drivel about how I don't know what it means, but it was YOU, yes YOU, that used the term incorrectly. Not me. You, and you only. Or, you were making a different point entirely and didn't use the correct term to drive said incoherent point home. So which is it? My guess is that you are just parroting right-wing soundbites to try and look "cool". All you really accomplished was this:
But hey, in some circles, I suppose this is seen as pretty impressive.
Anyways, I think I'll stop feeding the troll here.
Where's the usual dramatic flourish and flair of "Don't bother replying to this post!", or "You are on my ignore list!"? We all know you don't actually mean it, but it's part of the dinner and show.
Quote:Quote:Also, if you do see this Lem, it probably is your inbox, but in case it's not apologies if there are duplicated PMs. As always, I put the blame squarely, on someone and something else.
Oh yes, high school gossip. What are you, 14?
Wow. Just when I thought *FIT's comedy of reading incomprehension can not be topped. See, LoG's PM inbox might be full capacity. It displays an error message saying pretty much that exactly. The person I would like to send a PM to, their PM inbox quota has hit a limit.
I'm sending him a PM, which covers many subjects such as which home made popcorn recipe is good, or what's the best way to burn a faux fedora (actually a trilby). Therefore, one way of alerting him is through this thread, if he checks to read it.
It's hard to believe I know, but not everything revolves around you. Talk about an extreme and radical concept amirite.
*Don't worry dear, despite the slight name change, you'll still be classic FIT.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - FireIceTalon - 07-15-2015
(07-15-2015, 12:14 AM)Hammerskjold Wrote: Where's the usual dramatic flourish and flair of "Don't bother replying to this post!", or "You are on my ignore list!"? We all know you don't actually mean it, but it's part of the dinner and show.
It has to be admitted, reading your drivel is entertaining at times, if for a rather short period. I would read one of your posts for the same reasons one might watch Fox News for instance - it's for pure comedy relief and little else.
Quote:It's hard to believe I know, but not everything revolves around you. Talk about an extreme and radical concept amirite.
Considering you take the time to post underhanded jabs at me in almost every political thread on this board (whether I post in it or not), I'd say a good portion of your thought process involves me in some way. Can't say I am flattered though. As the saying goes, get off my jock!
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - LemmingofGlory - 07-15-2015
(07-13-2015, 11:46 AM)Jester Wrote:(07-13-2015, 06:25 AM)LemmingofGlory Wrote: The current polling data, which I believe kandrathe linked, even shows that the opinion on this is significantly different between age groups. As salty old people die off the subsequent generations just won't care.
That's correct, but it's not the most important factor. Demographic change is a smaller part of the increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage than people changing their views.
-Jester
Heh, I never said why subsequent generations wouldn't care and took for granted it was for obvious reasons. The rapid change in LGBT acceptance is nail-on-head, as the article elaborates with some examples. (I've always been somewhat skeptical about the media portrayal claim due to my general displeasure with LGBT portrayal in media.) If LGBT acceptance could've snaked its tendrils into the older generations, change would've happened even faster. But it couldn't. It's been yet another demonstration of the sad fact that many of us can't develop empathy for someone in an out-group unless we have a real, live physical example in our lives.
It really makes me reflect on how coming out to your parents is usually a given. Most gay people do it. But coming out to your grandparents? Nearly everyone I know says the same thing: "They're old. I'm going to spare them." (The set of grandparents that I knew had dementia, so the point was moot.) We tend to view the elderly as chiseled from stone and exempt from having to cope with something so uncomfortable. It probably really underestimates them. I am REALLY interested in seeing how gay marriage will change that.
Hammerskjold Wrote:Anyhow before the discussion derailment attempt via tantrum happened, there was a good point you mentioned with the 14th amendment. We've discussed this previous and it has been brought up in other threads, but 14th also happened to be used to give corporations it's legal personhood.
The one thing I've never understood is that if corporations are people then would denying a start-up business loan be the equivalent of contraception or an abortion? And I feel like Hobby Lobby would get upset if I asked them.
And, erf, yeah! I did let my inbox fill up with all those notes we pass about when senpai will notice us, desu~
-Lemmy-chan
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Thenryb - 07-15-2015
@The Antique Popsickle & The Agent - a brief comment on the 14th amendment. Were it not for that amendment the Bill of Rights would be nothing but a paper wall. States would be free to do as they pleased consistent, of course, with their respective constitutions and statutes.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Hammerskjold - 07-15-2015
(07-15-2015, 12:27 AM)FireIce Wrote: It has to be admitted, reading your drivel is entertaining at times, if for a rather short period. I would read one of your posts for the same reasons one might watch Fox News for instance - it's for pure comedy relief.
My, such projection, you should consider renting that ability out. Imax can use the competition.
Still no blazing insight yet from such a radical Galileo tier thinker though on the example that the US 14th amendments brought up? Any rad and tubularific idea on how to deal with real unintended consequences even well intentioned laws can bring up?
Quote:Considering you take the time to post underhanded jabs about me in almost every political thread on this board (whether I post in it or not), I'd say a good portion of your thought process involves me in some way.
Didn't you say I'm on the exclusive ignore list, for the X amount of time now, this is it etc etc double triple quad secret probation. Yet you're still obviously reading and replying to my posts. Even when you say I'm on the super serious for real this time ignore list. Promises promises.
Quote:Can't say I am flattered though. As the saying goes, get off my jock!
Do you really understand what the meanings of sayings and idioms are? So far you have been literal to the point of people wondering if you have a learning or reading impairment. Which as LoG said, there is no shame in admitting such a thing. It would clear up quite a lot of things. Not everything, but quite, a. Lot.
LemmingofGlory Wrote:The one thing I've never understood is that if corporations are people then would denying a start-up business loan be the equivalent of contraception or an abortion? And I feel like Hobby Lobby would get upset if I asked them.
Hahaha, that might be worth paying a lawyer's fee just to get them to ask that. Levity aside, it's one of those things that affects not only the U.S., since many large corporations are multinational. I mean if we want to bring in finance into this, just look up "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich". Sadly not a delicious special coffee and sandwich combo.
LemmingofGlory Wrote:And, erf, yeah! I did let my inbox fill up with all those notes we pass about when senpai will notice us, desu~
Kyaaa!
![[Image: goblin-shark-622x363_zpsb8352ee7.jpg]](http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n635/HarryLeferts/goblin-shark-622x363_zpsb8352ee7.jpg)
Thenry Wrote:@The Antique Popsickle & The Agent - a brief comment on the 14th amendment. Were it not for that amendment the Bill of Rights would be nothing but a paper wall. States would be free to do as they pleased consistent, of course, with their respective constitutions and statutes.
Awright, someone with experience weighing in on the matter. So is one of the key, if not -the- key issue with 14th amendment is the general agreement and trust that makes the structure of the US bill of rights? Take away one keystone, and the whole thing can be in danger of collapse?
I'm not a lawyer here, I'm just very interested in the legal angle of how the 14th seemed to shape a lot of the contemporary world.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - Thenryb - 07-15-2015
Quote: I'm not a lawyer here, I'm just very interested in the legal angle of how the 14th seemed to shape a lot of the contemporary world.
Well, hesitantly, I offer the following quick, shallow, overly simplistic and possibly dirty explanation. First, I am not at all sure it has much to do with “shaping” the “contemporary world” outside of the US. That said, the original constitution ratified in 1787 contained almost no individual rights guarantees. Delegate Charles Pickney proposed several such as freedom of the press and a ban on quartering soldiers in private homes but his proposals were rejected. The only protections included prohibitions against states enacting laws which “impaired the obligation of contracts” and “ex post facto” laws (those punishing someone for a act which was not criminal when committed) and bills of attainder (legislative determination of guilt). Madison (the primary framer) thought the separation of powers adequately protected liberty and would prevent oppressive majorities from garnering enough power to oppress minorities. The Anti-Federalists did not want the Constitution at all but argued that it should at least have provisions which protected specific individual rights. Even though Madison thought it was a useless “parchment barrier” he finally agreed to draft a declaration of rights to be added to the Constitution. This was mainly to deflect criticism from people like Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists in order to secure the document's ratification. He drafted a bunch of proposals which became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Amendments 1-8 are the Bill of Rights. None of these amendments were binding on the states. The courts began applying the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment through what became known as the doctrine of incorporation. The first case which did this was in 1868 in The Slaughterhouse Cases. Incorporation cases following this were mostly focused on the Due Process clause. The incorporation of individual rights probably did not receive that much popular attention until the Warren Court and its Brown v. Board of Education case, followed by other decisions of that court which made the 1st , 4th , 5th (partially), 6th and 8th (partially) amendments binding upon the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. More recently, the 2nd has been held binding. Two of the leading justices on the Warren court were Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter who held different views on whether or how incorporation should be applied. Black thought it should only apply to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. Frankfurter thought the tests should be more subjective-eg “does this state’s action shock the conscience (one of those silly legal phrases)”. Black’s view has not prevailed, in that the court has recognized rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, eg Griswold v. Connecticut (right to privacy) and the case being discussed in this thread.
Ok, that is about all I can think of offhand to say. I am certainly not an expert on constitutional law generally, although I certainly have opinions like most people. I am not a fan of the present Supreme Court generally mostly because it is as polarized as the rest of the country. I could say more about that, but that would likely be more than anyone would want to hear. I did like their decision in the gay marriage and affordable care cases, however.
RE: US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage - kandrathe - 07-15-2015
(07-15-2015, 04:26 AM)Thenryb Wrote:I found this too...Quote: I'm not a lawyer here, I'm just very interested in the legal angle of how the 14th seemed to shape a lot of the contemporary world.
Well, hesitantly, I offer the following quick, shallow, overly simplistic and possibly dirty explanation. ...
The Squalid 14th Amendment by Cato fellow Gene Healy
He severely critiques another Cato fellow, Roger Pilon's analysis and position on the 14th, Reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause to Redress the Balance Among States, Individuals, and the Federal Government by Kimberly C. Shankman and Roger Pilon
Cato, yes, but not an overly biased review {imho}. The 14th has a legacy of controversy, as it is the crux of the Fed Courts over riding State Law.